"When asked in the new poll if they trust Bush more than they had Clinton, 48 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush less, while 36 percent said they trusted him more and 15 percent said they trusted Bush the same as Clinton."

Of course it's a good thing local elections are about local politics:

"In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.

Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue."

Holy cow. I will admit that when you are seen as less trustworthy than Clinton, you have really done bad. It does surprise me that they would use Clinton as a comparison, though. Wasn't he the greatest (not to mention first Black) president ever? Why would anyone doubt his trustworthiness?

Holy cow. I will admit that when you are seen as less trustworthy than Clinton, you have really done bad. It does surprise me that they would use Clinton as a comparison, though. Wasn't he the greatest (not to mention first Black) president ever? Why would anyone doubt his trustworthiness?

The point is that people feverishly defend Bush, while denigrating Clinton to no end. Some people believe that Clinton was the worst president ever. Even if their worst predictions are true (which is highly doubtful) a lot of people thing that Bush has done even worse.

So lets say that Clinton was moderately good in some aspects, and notoriously bad in others. I think that Bush has been quite below average across the board, and worse in several major categories when compared with Clinton.

A fair assessment, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkessenz

Something that is hard to understand is that Clinton led a scandalous 2nd term presidency, but he still managed to make a large majority of Americans feel good about the presidency and the president. The only exceptions, were of course, the most vocal Republicans.

Well, y'see... you went too far... got too greedy. There is NO WAY that Clinton's 2nd term made a majority of Americans feel good about the presidency.

Well, y'see... you went too far... got too greedy. There is NO WAY that Clinton's 2nd term made a majority of Americans feel good about the presidency.

Are you crazy? Clinton proved that the american dream of attaining vast power and using it to get laid is alive and kicking. How many red-blooded men have had fantasies about what they'd do as a big cheese at a political convention thanks to Clinton? Clinton's only failing is his taste in women, not keeping a decent stock of vibrators in the oval office, and being dumb enough to lie about getting laid on the job. What he should have said is "Hell yah niggahz! I be diggin' the fat-bottomed girls on tha' job. It's stressful up here ya knowz! The only reason I haven't nuked some shizzle up is thanks to all these intern ho's!" Men would have laughed. Women would have snorted. Militant feminists would have had to replace all their shooting targets. Clinton would have still been branded a perv by the media, but at least an honest one. The only trick would have been getting his ice-queen wife to admit she was into the whole swinging scene.

that would be an amusing slogan if each candidate used that regarding the previous President

"You know, when they forced Khruschev out, he sat down and wrote two letters to his successor. He said, 'When you get yourself into a situation you can't get out of, open the first letter, and you'll be safe. When you get yourself into another situation you can't get out of, open the second letter.'

"Soon enough, he gets into a tight situation, and he opens the first letter. It says - 'Blame it all on me.' So he blames it all on the old guy, and it worked like a charm.

"When he got himself into a second situation, he opened the second letter. It said - 'Sit down, and write two letters.'"

(apparently from Traffic, but it's such a great quote that it transcends its source)

I think most people probably just feel that getting a BJ in the oval office and lying about it didn't lead to the deaths of 2000 troops.

I don't determine how trustworthy someone is by the results of their lie. I determine how trustworthy they are by determining if they knowingly DID lie to me. I know Clinton knowingly lied to me, I don't know that Bush knowingly lied to me. In my opinion there's a big difference between someone who will tell you a bold faced lie and someone who is telling you something they truly think is correct, which turns out not to be.

True, Bush may not have lied, as he is incapable of two-dimensional mental comprehension, but you can't deny his surrounding support staff, manipulating the intel by not asking the right questions, and just telling Bush, "Yeah, you're completely right Mr. B. Uhuh. Go get'em. We support yah. Nine One One. Resolve. You betcha Mr. B."

Sometimes I wonder if the intel was actually there which proved Saddam didn't have much WMD or much of a threat to anyone except himself. We could have simply bombed where he was, annihilating him, and put a force on the ground to kill most of his loyal guards. That could've been it as far as our physical presence there. But somewhere along the line, he changed his goals. Whether it was him, or his supporters who saw an opportunity for massive profits for their favorite businesses and oil companies, we'll know in the upcoming years. Unfortunately, how many thousands of US lives have to die before we figure this out?

I don't determine how trustworthy someone is by the results of their lie. I determine how trustworthy they are by determining if they knowingly DID lie to me. I know Clinton knowingly lied to me, I don't know that Bush knowingly lied to me. In my opinion there's a big difference between someone who will tell you a bold faced lie and someone who is telling you something they truly think is correct, which turns out not to be.

I now expect another red plate from Numanoid

1) The phrase is "bald-faced lie," not "bold-faced lie."

2) I don't believe President Bush lied about Iraq and WMD. I do believe he conducted his investigation with blinders on, looking to obtain a particular result, downplaying facts that were contrary to the result he wanted and highlighting facts that supported the result he wanted. This is dangerous and undermines the point of conducting the investigation in the first place.